Army Facebook post featuring Nazi war criminal sparks pushback

  
Via:  perrie-halpern  •  2 months ago  •  193 comments

By:   Tim Stelloh and Ben Collins

Army Facebook post featuring Nazi war criminal sparks pushback
"I am dumbfounded by the decision to prominently display a Nazi on military social media on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge," an observer said.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


An Army Facebook post about the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge sparked fierce pushback on Monday over its display of a Nazi war criminal.

The post appeared on the verified Facebook page of the XVIII Airborne Corps — which fought in the monthlong battle between Allied and German forces in 1944 — and featured a prominent photo of Joachim Peiper, a Nazi SS-Standartenführer, roughly equivalent to a colonel.

Peiper, who led thousands of men in Germany's last major offensive, was convicted of war crimes for a massacre of U.S. prisoners of war during the battle.

The post was followed by a description of Peiper's mission during the battle — although it didn't mention his role in what became known as the Malmedy Massacre.

The post, its author explained, was the first in a series marking the battle's 75th anniversary.


Scrolling through his Facebook feed on Monday night, an Army public affairs officer based in Pennsylvania saw the same three pictures of Peiper.

The officer, Lt. Col. Brian Fickel,   posted the screenshots to his personal Twitter page , adding that he was "dumbfounded by the decision to prominently display a Nazi on military social media on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge."

Within hours, Fickel's post had received thousands of likes and hundreds of retweets. In comment threads, dozens of people echoed Fickel's criticism.


The public affairs unit at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, which is home to the Airborne Corps, did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did the administrator of the Facebook page. After an NBC News reporter contacted the page, the photo of Peiper appeared to have been removed.

In an earlier comment thread, a moderator responded to criticism by saying Peiper had been featured because it was a technique used in "effective storytelling."

"Sometimes in movies, the movie will create a sense of tension by introducing a bad guy," the moderator wrote.

In a tweet , the Airborne Corps added that Peiper was a "terrible person" but an "effective combat leader."

"A teenager when Hitler come to power, Peiper joined the SS after serving as a member of the Hitler Youth," the corps said. "He rocketed through the ranks during the war, racking up medals, & promotions."

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 months ago

To see the actual post, please use the link. 

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     2 months ago

I saw the actual post at the link. I went to the 18th Facebook page and scrolled through it and could not find a photo of Peiper. Perhaps they took it down or I just missed it. 

The 18th Airborne Corps is telling the story of the Battle of the Bulge and  Peiper was a prominent figure in the battle. I guess it depends on the context of the article/story. 

In a town in northern Minnesota there is a huge weeping birch tree that was planted in early 1945 as a monument to my cousin who was KIA at Bastogne, December 24th 1944. 506th PIR 101st Airborne..Inside the business that the tree is planted in front of there is a bronze plaque that simply states,

A Rendezvous with Destiny  and a photo of my cousin. 

When the 101st was formed and being sent to Europe the Commanding General stated that the 101st had no history but had a Rendezvous with Destiny...Those words would become legend as the 101st held the important town of Bastogne and became known as the ''Battered Bastards of Bastogne''

He is buried at the US Military Cemetery in Belgium.

256

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @2    2 months ago

That is a really interesting story Kavika. I learn so much from these exchanges. 

btw, the post was taken down. That is why I said to check it out on the link. 

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2    2 months ago

cool story.

here's to my childhood pal Pete, RIP. an old friend of the family that survived the battle of the bulge. the only guy that ever told me war stories, and as far as I know, the only one he ever told. we watched old B&W war movies together whenever his daughter babysat me and my 2 sisters. Pete lost 2 toes to frostbite at the bulge and spent a short time in a field hospital for german artillery wounds and was plagued all his life by slivers of steel shrapnel working it's way to the surface of his body. because of his injuries, he was on a troop ship home soon after. Pete played poker every waking hour of the atlantic voyage and came home with enough money to buy a home, a car, and start a business. he also brought home a sack of lugers that he had accepted as debt payments. a visit to his house always meant seeing and holding the last 3 or 4 he had left kept in a toolbox. I wanted one. I begged for one. a nazi semi-auto pistol for an 8 year old was apparently a bit of a stretch on our friendship. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.2.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  devangelical @2.2    2 months ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
3  jungkonservativ111    2 months ago

We must shield our tender snowflakes from history! /s

The guy was a major part of the battle so I don't see the problem. Yes massacres did occur but you have to remember the context of the battle of the bulge. It was a final offensive that relied on speed and surprise. Taking prisoners of war is not always easy when you need to move fast. Not saying it's OK but a lot of stuff happened up to this point including the Dresden firebombings which basically melted a city of 200,000 defenseless German citizens. History is history, it happened. Better to know about it rather than shield yourself from it.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
3.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3    2 months ago

Actually Dresden was a month afterwards. My bad. Point is atrocities happened on both sides. You can still recognize someone's military accomplishments when they were part of the battle you are talking about.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2  Drakkonis  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3    2 months ago
The guy was a major part of the battle so I don't see the problem.

Because the Leftist elites don't want anyone to know any actual history. They don't want people understanding what true Nazism was. That way they can keep the term vague and more applicable to anyone who opposes them. 

 
 
 
devangelical
3.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2    2 months ago
Because the Leftist elites don't want anyone to know any actual history.

no, we just don't want our kids or grandkids to hear the revised and sanitized rightwing versions of history. 

I have no problem with the picture, that fucking nazi war criminal has probably been dead for decades. using his picture with the article created the desired effect. site interest and hits. in questionable taste maybe, but a provocative and bold marketing move.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.2  XDm9mm  replied to  devangelical @3.2.1    2 months ago
but a provocative and bold marketing move.

Actually, I don't think the XVIII Airborne Corps really needs any marketing.

I personally think it was just more chest pounding than anything.  They're proclaiming, rightly I might add, that it was their blood, sweat, tears, limbs and lives that brought that POS effectively to his knees and justice.  It was and is something to be very proud of and not hidden from view.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2    2 months ago

Drak,

I can't believe that you are making this political. Recognizing the event is important. Celebrating the accomplishments of someone who killed our boys is another.

What is wrong with you people? Is this what our country has come to?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.4  Drakkonis  replied to  devangelical @3.2.1    2 months ago
no, we just don't want our kids or grandkids to hear the revised and sanitized rightwing versions of history. 

And what about the article do you consider revisionist? Unfortunately, because of the snowflakes, whatever had been posted seems to have been removed so I can't see for myself. Apparently you have some indication of revisionism you could share with the rest of us? Are you saying that this man was not involved? That he really wasn't there? That he didn't do the things claimed? 

using his picture with the article created the desired effect. site interest and hits. in questionable taste maybe, but a provocative and bold marketing move.

I see. On that logic, someone writing a book about WWII that included Hitler, and photos of him, would be only include him to generate interest and would merely be a marketing move? This makes sense to you? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.5  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.2    2 months ago

You know I would agree with you 9mm, but did you take a look at the actual post? Please check out the link. It looks more like they are honoring him, and that is just wrong.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.6  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.4    2 months ago
And what about the article do you consider revisionist? Unfortunately, because of the snowflakes, whatever had been posted seems to have been removed so I can't see for myself.

I clearly said, click on the link to check out the original post. Do I have to post it here?

 
 
 
devangelical
3.2.7  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.6    2 months ago

please do. I'm not seeing any honoring of the guy by clicking the seeded content bar and going to the article.

 
 
 
devangelical
3.2.8  devangelical  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.4    2 months ago

my comment was in response to your comment and had nothing to do with the article.

This makes sense to you?

no, along with the question.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.9  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.3    2 months ago
I can't believe that you are making this political. Recognizing the event is important. Celebrating the accomplishments of someone who killed our boys is another.

I agree recognizing the event is important. I also agree that celebrating the accomplishments of someone who killed our boys is another thing altogether. Unfortunately, I can't say whether the post actually did celebrate such a thing. Do you know why? Because some snowflake got triggered and as so sadly often happens, makes somebody else bend to their will in order to keep from being eaten alive by the Left. Which they would do as they so often prove. Sure as hell isn't the right. 

What is wrong with you people?

If by "you people" you mean people who think like me the answer would be that I despise others telling me what I have to think, what I cannot think or allow me to make up my own mind. Thanks to this snowflake I don't get to do that now. So, if wanting to make up my own mind is wrong, wrong I'll be. 

Is this what our country has come to?

Unfortunately, yes. The way things are now, especially with the MSM, anyone who has ideas right of progressivism will get beaten down like the guy who posted the "offensive" photo and accompanying information. 

Can you understand what I am saying? I don't get to make up my own mind on what this guy posted. There's no real information in the article you posted other than some snowflake got upset and a bunch of people backed him up. Now I am left here with no real information to make up my own mind about anything. Apparently I'm just supposed to fall in line with the rest of the lemmings. 

The only other information I've been able to get is what was put up after the guy took the stuff down.

We regret the use of the photograph of Joachim Peiper. The intent was to tell the full story of the Battle of the Bulge, which will continue here, by explaining the incredible odds that were stacked up against the American Soldier by the time the reserve was called in on 18 Dec.

The Americans(mostly "green" Soldiers who had not yet seen combat) were facing the highest-trained Panzer force and were placed in a tough spot by command decisions. 

This was a battle won by American grit and we set the scene by describing the elements and forces the Americans faced.

Please continue to follow the story here over the next 6 weeks.

Now, maybe this guy's biggest mistake was not explaining what he was going to do over then next six weeks, first. That hardly deserves the reaction this guy got. Unfortunately, as already explained, I don't know what he originally posted because it isn't there because some snowflake objected. 

Now, if you cannot understand where I'm coming from and still think there's something wrong with me, then all I can say is I prefer to have this sort of wrong about me. Thank you for your time. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.10  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.6    2 months ago
I clearly said, click on the link to check out the original post.

My apologies. I've never used Twitter in my life. I do not have an account. I did not realize that what you linked to was more than a screen shot. 

Having seen it, now, I don't see what the problem is with it. The objector stated...

I am dumbfounded by the decision to prominently display a Nazi on military social media on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.

My first thought was, uh, why not? That's who they were fighting. I certainly didn't read anything that glorified the Nazi pictured. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.11  Drakkonis  replied to  devangelical @3.2.8    2 months ago
my comment was in response to your comment and had nothing to do with the article.

Then, apparently, you are accusing me of revisionism. What revision did I provide? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.12  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.9    2 months ago
I agree recognizing the event is important. I also agree that celebrating the accomplishments of someone who killed our boys is another thing altogether. Unfortunately, I can't say whether the post actually did celebrate such a thing. Do you know why? Because some snowflake got triggered and as so sadly often happens, makes somebody else bend to their will in order to keep from being eaten alive by the Left. Which they would do as they so often prove. Sure as hell isn't the right. 

No you can see it. I posted it here at 7.1. And if it is wrong, then it wasn't a "snowflake" (which I know is code for liberal, and this article has nothing to do with politics, thank you). Hey that is one handsome Nazi. I got a real lesson from that. Nazis looked great in uniform. 

Sometimes, inappropriate things come down and it's a good thing. I bet that photo is being used all over "Stormfront" today.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.13  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.10    2 months ago
My first thought was, uh, why not? That's who they were fighting. I certainly didn't read anything that glorified the Nazi pictured. 

Drak, I am dumbfounded. Show the battle and the dead, not some good looking Nazi in his fine fittings. This is a member of the military complaining. 

Again, I can't believe what I have been reading here. Between the Armenian genocide and this, I am really wondering about some of our membership.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.14  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.12    2 months ago
No you can see it. I posted it here at 7.1. And if it is wrong, then it wasn't a "snowflake" (which I know is code for liberal, and this article has nothing to do with politics, thank you).

I wasn't reading that thread, so irrelevant. And if you don't think this has anything to do with politics, then you didn't read the twitter responses. Maybe you should, then get back to me. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.15  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.14    2 months ago

Drak,

You just said that you don't have a Twitter account. How are you reading the responses?

And I didn't post this to be political and as you can tell, my reaction is not political. Let's keep it that way. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.13    2 months ago
Between the Armenian genocide and this, I am really wondering about some of our membership.

drstrangelove02.jpg

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
3.2.17  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.12    2 months ago

What are they supposed to do? It's an image of him, just because you find him attractive is irrelevant. Should they photoshop something embarrassing like a butt on his face next time or something?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.18  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.13    2 months ago
Drak, I am dumbfounded.

I'm not really sure why. Maybe you're farther left than I had thought? Usually you're pretty neutral and insightful, but it seems to be absent now. 

But, while not dumbfounded, I am confused by your response to what I've said. I didn't figure you a supporter of censorship. That's what we're really talking about here. You don't like what the guy posted or what I'm saying so you are trying to shame both. Not cool. 

Show the battle and the dead, not some good looking Nazi in his fine fittings.

Then maybe you should do your own thing to honor the battle and post it. Maybe this guy could have begun a different way but I would at least give him the benefit of a doubt and see what came next, not excoriate the guy. 

But think about your response to how he did begin. Apparently, most, if not all of your reaction was due to the picture. You got something entirely different than I did, apparently. My reaction wasn't what a nice looking guy he was or how nice his uniform looks, although both are true, but rather, how could something that are those things hold so much evil? This was before I figured out your twitter link and after I read their retraction explaining their intent to show how stacked the deck had been. It made sense to me. 

This is a member of the military complaining. 

This is a 20 year Army veteran complaining. 

Again, I can't believe what I have been reading here.

Maybe you're to incensed to understand what you've been reading here. 

Between the Armenian genocide and this, I am really wondering about some of our membership.

I'm not sure what the Armenian geocide has to do with this or where it appears in this thread. While I'd prefer your good opinion of me I don't need it. I'm not meaning to be snide by that but to say that I'm going to speak what I believe to be the truth regardless of what you think of me. I would think that someone, who until this, seemed more insightful than most here would prefer that to my simply being a lemming. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.19  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.15    2 months ago
You just said that you don't have a Twitter account. How are you reading the responses?

When I clicked on the first link you provided in your post, twitter pages comes up. Below it are responses. That's all I can tell you. I don't know why they are there. I do know that I cannot comment. Do you get something different when you click on that link? You cannot see the responses? 

And I didn't post this to be political and as you can tell, my reaction is not political.

I'm sorry, but I do not think you could post this and not have it be political. That is, while you may not have intended it to be political, it could not help but be, as the responses to the tweet prove. 

For me it is political not because of whether the photo was appropriate or not, which isn't political in itself, but rather, the public response to how it should be handled. Can you see those are two different things?

  1. Was this an appropriate photo? (not necessarily political)
  2. What should be done about it?  (necessarily political)

I can see that you are attempting to go with one, but you can't entirely. But I am addressing two, which isn't off topic. Public response is relevant to the discussion. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.20  XDm9mm  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.5    2 months ago
It looks more like they are honoring him, and that is just wrong.

Had you ever been in uniform, you would understand that regardless of which side one is on, military people always 'admire' the military skills even of adversaries.  They obviously don't agree with the position of the adversary, but they acknowledge the skill, cunning and leadership abilities of the individual.

That's been true throughout history.  The 'opponent' is a lowlife, but he's a brilliant strategist and tactician.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.21  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.18    2 months ago
But, while not dumbfounded, I am confused by your response to what I've said. I didn't figure you a supporter of censorship.

People complained and the Army yanked it. No one forced them to do that.

Then maybe you should do your own thing to honor the battle and post it. Maybe this guy could have begun a different way but I would at least give him the benefit of a doubt and see what came next, not excoriate the guy. 

I am not the US Army, in case you haven't noticed. I would have complained had I seen it though. There was nothing that came next. It was the official posting commemorating that day.

My reaction wasn't what a nice looking guy he was or how nice his uniform looks, although both are true, but rather, how could something that are those things hold so much evil?

How do you get that from a photo of a Nazi? I doubt that is the average response.

Maybe you're to incensed to understand what you've been reading here. 

No, I get it fully and it actually makes me sick. That monster killed thousands of our guys, and he is featured.

I'm not sure what the Armenian geocide has to do with this or where it appears in this thread. While I'd prefer your good opinion of me I don't need it. I'm not meaning to be snide by that but to say that I'm going to speak what I believe to be the truth regardless of what you think of me. I would think that someone, who until this, seemed more insightful than most here would prefer that to my simply being a lemming. 

First of all, I wasn't being snide. I am actually shocked. But I will clarify for you. Yesterday I posted an article on the US senate finally recognizing the Armenian genocide where 1.5 million Christians were murdered brutally, and somehow, people think that is no big deal. That is what I was referring to. Can you understand now, why I feel this way?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.22  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.21    2 months ago
First of all, I wasn't being snide. I am actually shocked. But I will clarify for you. Yesterday I posted an article on the US senate finally recognizing the Armenian genocide where 1.5 million Christians were murdered brutally, and somehow, people think that is no big deal. That is what I was referring to. 

I didn't think you were being snide. It just seemed like a non-sequitur. I actually applaud the recognition of the genocide, although that it took so long after the fact for it to happen detracts from it quite a bit, for me. Were they truly giving recognition or was it simply a beneficial political move. (I'm pretty cynical when it comes to politicians) If I were President, I'd do all I could to put the screws to Turkey until they acknowledged it as well. I think they may be attempting the same thing against the Kurds, but I'm not familiar enough with the history of that situation to have much of an opinion. 

Can you understand now, why I feel this way?

Maybe. Sorta. To my mind, these are two different things. One was a failure to recognize whether a genocide was a genocide and recognize that it actually happened. The other is simply being upset over a photo. It isn't as if anyone is arguing whether or not Joachim Peiper was a monster or not. 

How do you get that from a photo of a Nazi?

Perhaps because I'm fairly self-reflective. I look at other people, both good and bad and wonder if I share qualities with them. In the case of the Nazi, I looked at his face, his eyes and wondered "what makes me different? What made him the way he was? Why did he not (or could not) see what I do?" 

I doubt that is the average response.

I find that sad. 

There was nothing that came next. It was the official posting commemorating that day.

Correction. It was the first post of what will span six weeks. It was not THE posting. Only the beginning of it. Perhaps if people had not freaked out and actually saw what might have developed it would have made more sense to them. 

That monster killed thousands of our guys, and he is featured.

He was a monster, but not because he killed our guys. If that were the basis, our guys were monsters, too, since they killed thousands of them. No, he was a monster, if for nothing else, killing his prisoners. Of course there were reasons other than this but the point is, doing his job as a battlefield commander doesn't make him a monster any more than it makes our men monsters for doing their job on the battlefield. 

We had our own monsters as well

But really, the relevant point is, why shouldn't he be featured? He was pretty relevant to the battle after all. It seems to me that if the intent is to show how heroic our guys were against nearly impossible odds, you'd want to know what they were up against. I'm not sure I would have started the way these guys did but I'm not them. Perhaps, as I have said previously, it would have made sense if we'd actually given them the chance. 

But instead, people got triggered and the only acceptable response these days to put our collective heads in the sand and make it go away. Sorry, not me. I'm going to be rational instead. I'm not going to wet myself simply because I see a photo of a Nazi. In this case, I'm going to wait and see what develops. 

People complained and the Army yanked it. No one forced them to do that.

I know you aren't that naïve.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.22    2 months ago
I'm not going to wet myself simply because I see a photo of a Nazi.

What makes you think someone wet themselves because they saw a photo of a Nazi? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.24  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.23    2 months ago

Do you know what a figure of speech is? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.24    2 months ago

LOL. 

I didnt think you meant it literally. 

Why do you think anyone wet their pants figuratively after seeing the tweets? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.26  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.25    2 months ago

Because that is how the reaction seems to me. It literally, not figuratively, seems to me the reaction is "Oh, my God! A Nazi!" and that's it. They don't seem to realize there were Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge. 

I could see their point if this was a one off posting. It would literally make no sense and would seem to be glorifying the man. But it was pretty clear it was only the first in a series. Not the way I would have started, but they may have been going with "This was the face of the enemy" sort of beginning. Don't know for sure because they pretty much got cut off at the knees. It would have been better, more rational in my opinion, to see what developed rather than make the knee jerk reaction that they did. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.26    2 months ago

I think it is pretty questionable to post a "glamor shot" of a Nazi in a story about American bravery at the Battle of the Bulge. Now someone could say it's not a "glamor shot" , but apparently it was a close up of the Nazis face. 

Why would he be given prominence like that on a US Army twitter post about the Battle Of The Bulge? That just doesnt sound right. It sounds more like someone involved in creating the tweet has an agenda. 

In either case I looked at a bunch of the responses on twitter and I didnt see any "snowflakes". 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.28  Drakkonis  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.27    2 months ago

A matter of opinion, obviously. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.29  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.26    2 months ago
I could see their point if this was a one off posting. It would literally make no sense and would seem to be glorifying the man. But it was pretty clear it was only the first in a series.

Excuse me Drak, but I resent this. I had no intention of doing another story about this and I don't post Nazi stories as a habit. I happened to see this and thought that it was something we could all agree on. Imagine my shock that it took a turn for the worst ( for the second time in two days, that I thought I was posting an article that we could all agree on). So, please, leave me out of your idea of what this was meant as. It was a one off story and nothing more. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.30  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.29    2 months ago
Excuse me Drak, but I resent this.

I wasn't referring to you or your article as the one off article. That statement wasn't aimed at you at all. Sorry you thought so. 

Now I'm going to your other article and see what that was about. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
3.2.31  Drakkonis  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.29    2 months ago

You might consider checking out john-russel's artcle on this subject. I wrote a lengthy post concerning an article he seeded in it. Perhaps you might understand my position better, if you still care about it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @3    2 months ago

There is knowing about it and putting up a post that looks like it celebrates the person. That is the issue.

And yes, history is history. I am not for hiding it, but we don't have to celebrate who killed our boys.

 
 
 
devangelical
3.3.1  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.3    2 months ago
we don't have to celebrate who killed our boys

now you know how some of us feel when we see the confederate flag

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

So much outrage! 


The post was followed by a description of Peiper's mission during the battle — although it didn't mention his role in what became known as the Malmedy Massacre.

To anyone with even a modest knowledge of WWII history the SS Commander Peiper was notorious for the "Malmedy Massacre".  If anyone wants to be outraged, let me repeat what I heard as a young boy from someone who used to transport German prisoners - "We were only amateurs, the real soldiers wore field gray"

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 months ago

Again, Vic that is not the issue. The issue was how it was presented. It looked more like a glorification of the man who killed so many of our men. That is the issue.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1    2 months ago
The issue was how it was presented.

It wasn't how it was presented.  It's how it was received by those who don't know, who don't understand WHY it was presented in the first place.  All they saw was a Nazi and that is all it took for them to lose their minds.

The problem is the 99% of the population that has never served do not understand what they are looking at.  So they want it sanitized as to not be offended and avoid the realities of war.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1.1    2 months ago

Check out the pic of the post at 7.1 and rethink that.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
4.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.1.2    2 months ago

Nothing to rethink.  I, unlike many, understand what the intent was and I am familiar with the history of the situation.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    2 months ago
If anyone wants to be outraged, let me repeat what I heard as a young boy from someone who used to transport German prisoners - "We were only amateurs, the real soldiers wore field gray"

And your point is what?  You seem to be emphasizing an opinion that Germans were better soldiers than Americans. Why are you doing that? 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
4.2.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    2 months ago

You take everything out of context.When the Americans landed in France none of them had any experience, and they were going up against battle hardened soldiers coming over from the brutal eastern front. It was in fact amateurs vs experts. It's not an insult, it's a fact, and not an embarrassing one considering the amateurs won. This is exactly what "we people" as Pierrie refers to us are talking about. You people get so caught up in your hatred of nazism that you can't acknowledge when they actually had smart military ideas or techniques worth remembering. It's an inconvenient truth and just like you would die before you gave Trump a compliment, the same goes for anything having to do with nazis. I commend you for being such a radical SJW, but please allow the rest of us to learn from History if we choose without your virtue signalling and name calling.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @4.2.1    2 months ago

We already know what sort of opinions you like to post on this forum, and that places your praise of Nazis in a very curious light. 

You are what you are. 

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.3  Kavika   replied to  jungkonservativ111 @4.2.1    2 months ago
You take everything out of context.When the Americans landed in France none of them had any experience

False, The 1st Infantry Division had already fought in North Africa and Sicily. The 82nd Airborne had fought in both North Africa and Sicily. They were not inexperienced in combat on D Day.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2    2 months ago
And your point is what?

That there is no need for the outrage. There is nothing new here.


You seem to be emphasizing an opinion that Germans were better soldiers than Americans.

Am I? The German Army was a killing machine. They almost wiped out the British & French Armies. (They were allowed to escape at Dunkirk). Those countries didn't want to send their soldiers back to continental Europe. They didn't return until the US Army came in with the Brits and others to form a second front. We never faced the number of German Divisions that the Red Army had to face. The Russians lost 4 soldiers for every German soldier lost and the Russians had winter uniforms and supplies. Ya, I think I am agreeing to what the Veteran GI (a Combat MP) once said. 


Why are you doing that? 

To put the sense of outrage in context! Instead of being outraged by a picture, we should all be grateful for the sacrifices & courage of an entire generation!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    2 months ago

I think we are seeing a lot of wishful thinking on this seed, or a lot of dissembling.  Both on the part of those who are "defending " the appearance of a Nazi on a pro American tweet about the Battle Of The Bulge. 

Let's think about this - we're going to create some tweets about the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of The Bulge and one of the first things we're going to do is post a close up of the face of an SS officer accused of massacring Americans during the battle?

I dont think so. 

We have evidence that a lot of people smelled something funny here. They complained about it on twitter. Now the Army will investigate.  I am willing to accept the brass' explanation once they give it.  I'm not willing to accept that everything looks fine with this story. 

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.6  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    2 months ago

Vic I have to dispute some of your claims. 

The Brits and French were never ''allowed'' to escape at Dunkirk. It was because of the French army that held off the Germans allowing the Brits and French to escape to England. The French returned to fight on the continent with a few weeks. Some French stayed in England and joined DeGalle Free French Army which took part in the D Day invasion.

At the start of the war a very small part of the Russian army was modern and the Germans army was very modern with the best of weapons. The lend lease program kept the Russians fighting while Stalin moved his factories east of the Ural mountains. From that point the Russians produced thousands of tanks, arty pieces, planes and by 1944 were by far the better equipped army than the Germans.

The turning point on the eastern front was the battle for Stalingrad. The Germans threw everything that they had at it and the Russians held at a great cost. It broke the Germans back and Hitler made a huge mistake by not allowing his 6th army to retreat. The Russians shortly there after destroyed the entire German 6th army. Between 1941 and 45 the Germans lost between 6 and 7 million men on the Eastern Front. 

Also Vic, the vaunted German fighting machine, Rommel the Desert Fox  suffered major defeats in North Africa at the hands of the Brits and the US. 

Were the Germans better fighting machine then the Russian or Americans, I think not but that is taking nothing away from the Germans, they were tough. 

There is a number of verified reports of the drug use in the German Army, namely meth. 

Here is an article well worth reading on this...https://www.history.com/news/inside-the-drug-use-that-fueled-nazi-germany

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.5    2 months ago
Let's think about this - we're going to create some tweets about the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of The Bulge and one of the first things we're going to do is post a close up of the face of an SS officer accused of massacring Americans during the battle?

Are you saying we should bury the fact that such an atrocity was committed?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.7    2 months ago

LOL. 

Why did they put a "glamor shot" of the Nazi war criminal in the US Army post? 

Oh hell, I'll just repeat what I posted farther down the seed. Maybe you didnt see it.

The US Army Is Sorry For Posting A Glamour Shot Of A Nazi War Criminal On Their Facebook Page The Colorized Image Apparently Originated From A Slovakian Fascist Gamer’s Website.

The headline says it all and explains the controversy.  It was a "glamor shot". 

Text that accompanied the photo is also extremely problematic

=======================================================

_v=63f541576617500

“The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men through the American lines,”

========================================================

Frankly, it is easy to see why Americans of all sorts objected to this.  I hope the Army investigates to find out if some right wing nationalism isnt behind this. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.2.6    2 months ago
The Brits and French were never ''allowed'' to escape at Dunkirk.

Many historians would disagree:

"Only a few bridgeheads were still held by British, French and Belgian forces. The most important one was Dunkirk. Its defence and, moreover, the evacuation of 338,682 Allied soldiers between 26 May and 4 June under the guns of German tanks, soon became part of British folklore.

The withdrawal was facilitated by the Germans' decision not to finish the Allies off. Hitler and his commanders could have pushed ahead and made the killer blow, but decided to effectively let the Allies off the hook.

This decision was surprising at the time and looks even more surprising in hindsight, giving rise to much speculation. This was nourished by one of Hitler's last statements before his suicide on 30 April 1945, claiming that he had allowed the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) to escape as a "sporting gesture" in order to induce British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill to conclude an agreement with Nazi Germany."

https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dunkirk-75th-anniversary-real-reason-hitler-let-british-troops-go-1503201

It has been debated as to why the Germans called off the dogs, but there is no questioning the fact that the Germans let them go.


At the start of the war a very small part of the Russian army was modern and the Germans army was very modern with the best of weapons. The lend lease program kept the Russians fighting while Stalin moved his factories east of the Ural mountains. From that point the Russians produced thousands of tanks, arty pieces, planes and by 1944 were by far the better equipped army than the Germans.

The turning point on the eastern front was the battle for Stalingrad. The Germans threw everything that they had at it and the Russians held at a great cost. It broke the Germans back and Hitler made a huge mistake by not allowing his 6th army to retreat. The Russians shortly there after destroyed the entire German 6th army. Between 1941 and 45 the Germans lost between 6 and 7 million men on the Eastern Front. 

That was but a part of it. The Russian winter was, as usual, it's best ally. The long German supply lines, which had a hard time keeping up with the Armies were constantly under pressure as well as partisan attack. You mention the German 6th Army being encircled at Stalingrad. The German flanks were supported by weak Rumanian and Italian units. The Russians seemed to know all about it and hit both sides hard and were able to encircle an entire German Army. I think it can be argued that the decisive war in Europe was fought on the Eastern front. The Red Army won but at an enormous cost. 26 million lives lost by Russia - more than any other country - 60 times what the US lost.


Also Vic, the vaunted German fighting machine, Rommel the Desert Fox  suffered major defeats in North Africa at the hands of the Brits and the US. 

It was a small theatre of the war, which Germany got into to support it's failing ally Italy. Eventually Rommel simply couldn't get supplied and the Allies prevailed. Rommel wasn't there when that happened btw.


Were the Germans better fighting machine then the Russian or Americans, I think not but that is taking nothing away from the Germans, they were tough. 

I say thank God it wasn't just us against them on one front! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.10  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.8    2 months ago
Why did they put a "glamor shot" of the Nazi war criminal in the US Army post? 

You mean glamour?  Why is it a glamour shot? Because some progressive said so.

Just because people in the 1940's didn't pierce their noses with jewelry or plaster their bodies with tattoos didn't make them glamorous. It made them clean cut and NORMAL. It wasn't until the progressives won the culture war that people began to disfigure themselves and degenerate. 

Sorry John, I had to break it to you. It's just the way people kept themselves back then. No glamour.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.11  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.4    2 months ago

So instead of showing a photo of a Nazi, maybe what they should have been showing is out troops and their leaders. This isn't rocket science and the defense of the poor choice by the Army is really disturbing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.12  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.11    2 months ago
So instead of showing a photo of a Nazi, maybe what they should have been showing is out troops and their leaders.

We shouldn't be afraid to show any relevant pictures and NOBODY including OBAMA should be telling the US military what to show or how to tell the story. There were atrocities committed in WWII and they should not be forgotten.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.10    2 months ago
You mean glamour?  Why is it a glamour shot? Because some progressive said so.Just because people in the 1940's didn't pierce their noses with jewelry or plaster their bodies with tattoos didn't make them glamorous. It made them clean cut and NORMAL. It wasn't until the progressives won the culture war that people began to disfigure themselves and degenerate. Sorry John, I had to break it to you. It's just the way people kept themselves back then. No glamour.

What was that, his high school yearbook picture? "Glamor shot" is a term meaning it is meant to make him look good. Would you disagree? 

Perrie is absolutely right. Some of the replies by conservatives on this thread are a tad disturbing.  

Its not me saying it, its not Perrie saying it, evidently enough people said something that the Army APOLOGIZED. 

Dont worry about my replies Vic, worry about your own.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.12    2 months ago

I dont think you get the point. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.15  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.12    2 months ago

Vic,

Where did Obama come into this? I never mentioned him, and neither did anyone else that I have seen. 

And sorry, no. When the US Army is commemorating our Army, and our officers. We don't post photos of Nazis, that were sentenced to death after Neuerburg. At least back then, people seemed to understand good from bad ideas. 

btw.. here is a little piece of history that might explain why some are calling this a glamor shot. Did you know that the Nazis had designer Hugo Boss design their uniforms, so that they would look sharp? You can google that. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Boss_(fashion_designer)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.16  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.13    2 months ago
"Glamor shot" is a term meaning it is meant to make him look good. Would you disagree? 

You would have to know that was the intent. BTW I don't find him handsome or glamorous. My question for you is - how many pictures of Peiper are there?
Do you know?

Perrie is absolutely right.

Let Perrie speak for herself.


evidently enough people said something that the Army APOLOGIZED. 

The Army was politicized by Barak Obama. We just had a slaughter of Navy personnel who were not allowed to be armed and what is worse - training with pilots from Saudi Arabia. Somebody should APOLOGIZE for forcing that transgression on the military!!!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.17  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.16    2 months ago

Again with Obama. He has nothing to do with this. This just happened. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.18  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.15    2 months ago
Where did Obama come into this?

Because he politicized the military like every other agency of government. Here we are demanding that the military change something because somebody is offended. I am totally against that.

And sorry, no. When the US Army is commemorating our Army, and our officers. We don't post photos of Nazis, that were sentenced to death after Neuerburg. At least back then, people seemed to understand good from bad ideas. 

I have to disagree. When a historical story is being told I happen to like as many pictures as possible. They are part of the story. I don't believe in censorship. I want as much information as possible.

btw.. here is a little piece of history that might explain why some are calling this a glamor shot. Did you know that the Nazis had designer Hugo Boss design their uniforms, so that they would look sharp? You can google that. 

I didn't know. I do believe I read somewhere that German companies were put together based on height. The reason - so they would all be the same height when on parade. I wish the US military would do the same. I don't know why you would object to that?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.16    2 months ago
You would have to know that was the intent. BTW I don't find him handsome or glamorous. My question for you is - how many pictures of Peiper are there?Do you know?

Read the Vice article. Maybe the truth will dawn on you by osmosis or something. 

It struck some people as odd that the Army made a tweet about the Battle Of The Bulge featuring an SS officer who just happened to be accused of murdering American captives. Then it's a photo of his face, that just happened to be found on a fascist website in Slovakia. 

It's strange Vic, and its a pity you cant see that. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.17    2 months ago

I dont think you are going to get anywhere with this Perrie. 

Some members of NT made strange comments about this story. It is what it is. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.21  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.19    2 months ago
It's strange Vic, and its a pity you cant see that.

It's strange in the same way that progressives were trying to claim that cadets at the Army-Navy game were giving the Nazi salute when they were simply pumping their fists. 

Maybe the truth

Maybe the truth is something you need to be better acquainted with

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.22  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.20    2 months ago
Some members of NT made strange comments about this story.

And one of them is wearing a snow flake

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.23  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.18    2 months ago

Vic,

1. This had nothing to do with Obama. This came from US citizens and the Army decided to remove it. And before Obama The Army and the DoD commemorate the Battle of the Bulge without Nazis. 

2. Commemorating history is not featuring a Nazi. What's next? Nazi trading cards with interesting personal facts on the backs?

And just for the record, even "Military Times" is a bit confused by this posting. 

The DoD has yet to explain why the colorized image of a Nazi war criminal was prominently placed on its social media accounts. Military Times reached out to the Pentagon Monday evening and was told that the DoD currently had nothing to provide.....

The thread sparked outrage even among Army public affairs personnel.

“I am dumbfounded by the decision to prominently display a Nazi on military social media on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge," Lt. Col. Brian Fickel tweeted.

“I was surprised to see this “fanboy” flavored piece was written by 18th Airborne Corps. I was all like, wut”," one person wrote in the comments section of the Army’s Facebook post. “This piece fanboyed the hell out of Pieper [sic], a convicted war criminal who’s men murdered four score American soldiers. Do you expect something similar where Osama Bin Laden or Abu Bakr al Baghdadi are lauded?”

Here is what it was replaced with. Something more appropriate:

512

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.24  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.23    2 months ago
1. This had nothing to do with Obama.

Ok Perrie, I'll leave him out of it, though the whole idea of the military caving in on this smells of PC.


This came from US citizens and the Army decided to remove it.

I'm a citizen too. What makes the sensibilities of some citizens more important than that of others?


 Commemorating history is not featuring a Nazi. 

So you want the battle of the Bulge commemorated without the murder of prisoners mentioned? You just want to commemorate victory? In that case how about a parade like we used to have shortly after WWII?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.25  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.24    2 months ago

This is the opening of the Army's "commemoration" of the Battle Of The Bulge, featuring a large photo of a Nazi

H4L6XQZDSZG6DICIFZ4GJYY2UU.png

You start out by posting a large head shot of a Nazi? Please. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.26  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.24    2 months ago
So you want the battle of the Bulge commemorated without the murder of prisoners mentioned? You just want to commemorate victory? 

No. I want what we always had before. Respect for our dead and commemorating those that gave us that decisive win. I think the photograph I provided was the appropriate. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.27  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.25    2 months ago

There's more

A colorized photo of the war criminal Nazi Waffen-SS officer responsible for the deaths of American prisoners of war during World War II was posted to U.S. Army and Defense Department Facebook accounts commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge.

The image of Joachim Peiper — a Panzer tank commander involved in the deaths of 84 Americans in what is known as the Malmedy massacre — was originally posted to Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps and subsequently shared by the Department of Defense and the Army’s 10th Mountain Division.

The image featuring the Nazi commander generated massive push back on social media with some describing the post as “vile” and “disturbing.” The post included a narrative featuring excerpts from Peiper’s journal entry that some commentators on social media described as a “fanboy” account of the Nazi commander’s exploits during the Battle of the Bulge.

“The mission was called “Unternehmen Wacht am Rhein” (“Operation Watch on the Rhine”), and Joachim would lead it. The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men through the American lines,” the now edited narrative reads.

“This surprise western counteroffensive Peiper was set to launch was the only hope for the survival of Nazi Germany,” the narrative states

The image has since been removed from the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps Facebook post and it’s narrative of the Battle of the Bulge has been reedited.

The DoD has yet to explain why the colorized image of a Nazi war criminal was prominently placed on its social media accounts. Military Times reached out to the Pentagon Monday evening and was told that the DoD currently had nothing to provide.

The thread sparked outrage even among Army public affairs personnel.

“I am dumbfounded by the decision to prominently display a Nazi on military social media on the 75th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge," Lt. Col. Brian Fickel tweeted.

“I was surprised to see this “fanboy” flavored piece was written by 18th Airborne Corps. I was all like, wut”," one person wrote in the comments section of the Army’s Facebook post. “This piece fanboyed the hell out of Pieper [sic], a convicted war criminal who’s men murdered four score American soldiers. Do you expect something similar where Osama Bin Laden or Abu Bakr al Baghdadi are lauded?”

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-military/2019/12/17/army-and-dod-post-image-of-nazi-war-criminal-to-commemorate-battle-of-the-bulge/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.28  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.26    2 months ago

The Army should investigate why and how this happened.  Hopefully there is an innocent explanation. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.25    2 months ago

John, It's only a picture. Maybe the idea was to show what we fought against. The substance is what follows. I'm sorry that I don't share your outrage.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.30  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.26    2 months ago

It appears that the very first person to be recognized by the US Army regards to this anniversary was a Nazi SS officer.  And then his story was to be told in sympathetic terms. 

On the face of it something stinks here. 

The most logical explanation is that someone involved in this project admires nazis. 

Lets hope the real answer is more palatable. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.29    2 months ago

Nah, there was something else going on.  They didnt need a big color photo of this guy's face in order to describe what he did. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.32  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.26    2 months ago
No. I want what we always had before.

Well parades are what we had before.....up until Vietnam. But you don't want that, ok.


Respect for our dead and commemorating those that gave us that decisive win.

Of course. That goes with or without the photos.


I think the photograph I provided was the appropriate. 

I might even agree with you on that, but neither you nor I should be determining what should be shown. You think the picture of Peiper denigrates the memory of the Americans who fought in the battle of the Bulge?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.33  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.27    2 months ago
“This surprise western counteroffensive Peiper was set to launch was the only hope for the survival of Nazi Germany,” the narrative states

John, It WAS the last offensive/counteroffensive on the western front by Germany. That is a simple fact. I don't see what you are trying to make out of it.

I think I'm getting it. Let me ask you a question. Since World War II - what wars that the US was involved in were you in favor of?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.34  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.32    2 months ago
Well parades are what we had before.....up until Vietnam. But you don't want that, ok.

You are twisting my words. On Veterans days I go to the parade. The DoD and the Army have been doing this for some time now, and not before did they include a Nazi as their leading photo.

I might even agree with you on that, but neither you nor I should be determining what should be shown.

Well apparently so.

You think the picture ofPeiper denigrates the memory of the Americans who fought in the battle of the Bulge?

Yes, I do. We have plenty of our own heroes to tell their tale and not a Nazi war criminal.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.35  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.33    2 months ago

I know all about World War 2 Vic.  I have been reading up on it for decades. 

I'll recommend a couple good books on it for if you like. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.36  Vic Eldred  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.34    2 months ago
Well apparently so.

How about all the teachers in US schools teaching revisionist history. Howard Zinn's "A Peoples History of the United States" was written as a textbook and is being used as one in many schools. I think it is blatantly anti-American. Can I get that removed from the classroom?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.37  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.35    2 months ago
I'll recommend a couple good books on it for if you like. 

I'll be more than happy if you can answer my question in Post # 4.2.33

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.38  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.37    2 months ago

See you in the morning

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.39  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.9    2 months ago

As you said many historians would disagree. Yes they do and this is the other side of that debate. 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-mystery-left-out-of-christopher-nolans-dunkirk-why-didnt-hitler-go-in-for-the-killhttps:

The arrogance of the German high command thought that they would destroy Russia before winter set in and they didn't think that the Russians could hold out. They were wrong on both counts. 

The US faced that dilemma regarding long suppy lines as well yet we overcame them. 

The defeat of the Russian army after Stalingrad was complete. The German commanders in the field begged Hitler to let them withdraw as they knew that they would be destroyed if they did not. Hitler would not let them retreat and thus the destruction of the German 6th Army. 

Vic the North African campaign was not a small theater of war. It was critical in the overall defeat of Nazi Germany. The Suez Cannel was the prize. 

Again Hitler made a massive mistake. When it was obvious that the Africa Corp of Rommel was going to be defeated Rommel wanted to withdrawn. Hitler forbid it and flew Rommel out but the Africa Corps surrendered and 130,000 German troops were captured along with they main battle tanks. The Africa Corps were some of Germany's finest troops along with hordes of equipment all lost. 

From there the long march north toward Germany began. Sicly, Italy and north. 

I agree that the eastern front was probably the most devastating to Hitler and the Russians, true to form, would not quit it was fighting to the last man and woman in Russia. 

Please take into consideration that the US was also fighting a two front war. The war in the Pacific was consuming tens of thousands of US troops and equipment. If we were not fighting the Pacific war at the same time and could concentrate on only the European war what might have been the result.

Good discussion. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
4.2.40  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Kavika @4.2.6    2 months ago

Wrong. The Germans were not held off, they were never ordered to finish them off. On top of that Hitler beleived that idiot Goring that the luftwaffe could finish the job on their own. Major tactical mistake, nothing to do with the British or French "holding the Germans off". They got out by God's grace and many documentaries confirm that.

The Germans were not as mechanized as you make them sound. Most of their equipment was still driven by horse. The only way they ever lost battles, was when they were completely over drawn as they were at Stalingrad and North Africa. It was not that the Germans couldn't have won, they over extended themselves and didn't have what they needed to fight.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.41  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.2.39    2 months ago
Please take into consideration that the US was also fighting a two front war. The war in the Pacific was consuming tens of thousands of US troops and equipment. If we were not fighting the Pacific war at the same time and could concentrate on only the European war what might have been the result.

Just one note on that. The war in the Pacific (our second front) was essentially handed over to the US Navy and their private army in those days - the Marines.

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.42  katrix  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.41    2 months ago
The war in the Pacific

If you are ever in the Austin area, the Museum of the Pacific War Theater is simply stunning. You might even need two days to explore it all.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.43  Vic Eldred  replied to  katrix @4.2.42    2 months ago

That sounds great. I'd love to see Texas as well, so I'll add that to the bucket list.

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.44  Kavika   replied to  jungkonservativ111 @4.2.40    2 months ago
Wrong. The Germans were not held off, they were never ordered to finish them off. On top of that Hitler beleived that idiot Goring that the luftwaffe could finish the job on their own. Major tactical mistake, nothing to do with the British or French "holding the Germans off". They got out by God's grace and many documentaries confirm that.

The link clearly states that the German army was halted twice in their march on Dunkirk. And each is explained. 

The Germans were not as mechanized as you make them sound. Most of their equipment was still driven by horse. The only way they ever lost battles, was when they were completely over drawn as they were at Stalingrad and North Africa. It was not that the Germans couldn't have won, they over extended themselves and didn't have what they needed to fight.

I clearly stated that the German high command (Hitler) made horrible decisions which cost the Germans hundreds of thousands of troops and equiptment. Out running your supply lines or not have the ability to supply your troops is a huge military blunder. It seems that the Germans mastered this aspect of it quite well.

You, of course, can believe that the Germans were superior to the Allied armies but the fact remains that they lost.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.45  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.41    2 months ago
The war in the Pacific (our second front) was essentially handed over to the US Navy and their private army in those days - the Marines.

I doubt MacArthur would agree.  2,000,000 US Army personnel were in the Pacific Theater over the course of the war and all the MacArthur led campaigns featured the Army as the main American force. (The majority of the fighting troops under MacArthur in the earlier stages were Australians. )

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.46  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.41    2 months ago
Just one note on that. The war in the Pacific (our second front) was essentially handed over to the US Navy and their private army in those days - the Marines.

Actually the US Army had more troops and division in the Pacific than the Marines did, Vic. 

The US Army had 21 Infantry divisions and 1 Airborne Division the 11th Airborne. The Marine Corps had 6 divisions in the Pacific. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.47  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.45    2 months ago

That's right John, MacArthur led the Army forces in the Pacific. That decision was made right away by FDR to have the impression of a national hero responding to the Japanese attack. 


and all the MacArthur led campaigns featured the Army as the main force. 

He was the Army in the Pacific. MacArthur (who was given the 7th fleet for the logistics of his command) actually conflicted with Admiral Nimitz on strategy and goals. Both Nimitz and MacArthur were part of a two pronged US war against Japan. For example, Admiral Nimitz wanted to bypass the Philippines altogether. MacArthur had a vested interest in reclaiming the Philippines. The argument had to be settled by FDR who eventually sided with MacArthur. 
(In typical MacArthur fashion he offered his personalized critique of Nimitz argument to FDR. He told the president "As I listened to Admiral Nimiz talk about by passing the Philippines, I thought I could see the colors going down!)

"The Philippines was the site of some of the most vicious fighting in the Pacific theater. By the time the war ended, 320,000 Japanese occupation troops on the Philippines had died. Of an American force of 300,000 that occupied the archipelago, 15,000 died and 48,000 were wounded, The hardest hits were taken by the people of the Philippines. The Philippines lost more than five percent of its total population (1 million dead out of 18 million people in the Philippines)."

https://www.quora.com/How-many-Americans-died-in-the-Philippines-during-World-War-2

Was it a good idea?

MacArthur's command was arguably symbolic. I am a big admirer of the General, but he was there because he already had hero status. He acquired that in the First World War.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.48  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @4.2.44    2 months ago

Max Hastings, Inferno (history of WWII)

512

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.49  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.47    2 months ago

Mac Arthur wanted the US effort in counterstrike to center on moving up to retake the Phillipines and approach Japan from that angle. The Navy proposed the well known island hopping strategy. The Navy basically won the argument, and of course the Marines were trained for amphibious assaults. 

Nonetheless the Army played a major role in the campaigns that were under MacArthur's direction. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.50  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.2.46    2 months ago

They had different functions and the Army was one full branch of the military. At that time the Marine Corps was simply a tool of the US Navy. Eisenhower would later separate the Marines into an equal branch.

Would you like to compare the Army and Marines in the European theatre?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.51  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.49    2 months ago
Mac Arthur wanted the US effort in counterstrike to center on moving up to retake the Phillipines and approach Japan from that angle. The Navy proposed the well known island hopping strategy. The Navy basically won the argument, and of course the Marines were trained for amphibious assaults. 

MacArthur was commander based in the Philippines between the World Wars and when the Japanese captured the Philippines MacArthur made a promise to return!!!!   The Navy didn't win the argument about the Philippines. MacArthur did. I'll ask you again - was the cost of retaking them worth it?

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.52  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.50    2 months ago
Would you like to compare the Army and Marines in the European theatre?

Not sure what your point is Vic. The Army had many more troops in the Pacific than the Marines. The Army engaged in some of the most vicious fighting in the Pacific theater as did the Marines. 

I'm not taking anything away from the Marines. My father was in the first wave of Marines to hit Tarawa. He was fought at Saipan and Okinawa. His brother was also a Marine in the Pacific and fought at Guam and some of the other island hopping battles. My uncle (mothers brother) was in the 11th Airborne in the Pacific.  All saw extensive combat. 

Semper Fi

Airborne all the Way.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.53  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.2.52    2 months ago
Not sure what your point is Vic.

Only what I said before. Despite the Army presence the war in the Pacific was a Navy operation.


I'm not taking anything away from the Marines.

I didn't think you were. Nobody could.


My father was in the first wave of Marines to hit Tarawa. He was fought at Saipan and Okinawa. 

I'm sure you are proud of him. He survived 3 intense battles. The Marines lost over 3,000 men in the assault on Tarawa alone. 

 
 
 
Kavika
4.2.54  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.53    2 months ago
Only what I said before. Despite the Army presence the war in the Pacific was a Navy operation.

I'm sure that is a point that can be debated for decades. The Navy had it's finest hour (according to naval historians) in the battle of Samar (part of the battle of Leyte Gulf) I posted an extensive article on this some time back. 

The Army presence in the Pacific was massive. As you're aware that theater was divided into the Nimitz and MacArthur theaters so to speak.

Whatever it is called it was 4 years of intense and most times brutal fighting. Involving air, sea and land forces. 

All stand proud.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.55  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kavika @4.2.54    2 months ago
As you're aware that theater was divided into the Nimitz and MacArthur theaters so to speak.

Yes. Are you aware that Admiral Nimitz developed two offensive fleets, while assigning the 7th Fleet to support Gen MacArthur?  The industrial might of the United States ran at full strength. When the US was attacked much of the old Pacific Fleet was either damaged or sunk at Pearl Harbor. The Navy's only 4 Aircraft Carriers at the time were out on assignments on the day Pearl Harbor attack. We were lucky to have broken the Japanese code and lucky to win at Midway. After that the Navy grew at an astounding rate. We not only had the big attack carriers but we quickly built smaller support (escort) carriers.

"By war's end in 1945, the United States Navy had added nearly 1,200 major combatant ships, including twenty-seven aircraft carriers, eight "fast" battleships, and ten prewar "old" battleships  totaling over 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels of 1,000 tons or greater."

The U.S. Navy fought six great battles with the Imperial Japanese Navy. The attack on Pearl Harbor, Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Midway, Battle of the Philippine Sea, Battle of Leyte Gulf and the Battle of Okinawa.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_in_World_War_II

 
 
 
loki12
5  loki12    2 months ago

Those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it,  Ignorance of past atrocities in no way will shield you from future atrocities. 

At some point the snowflakes have to learn that removing things that upset you is a disservice to future generations, Plowing down Auschwitz and putting up a water park (Removing civil war statues)(Removing German war photos) might feel good, But it removes a teaching moment. Never again!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5    2 months ago

Loki,

At this point, I think that no one clicked on the link and are going straight to their talking points, just like with the Armenian genocide article. 

The posting made on facebook looked more like a glorification of the guy, and not history. I agree that we should not forget history. But should we also glorify the people who killed us?

And do you realize how offensive it is to read "Plowing down Auschwitz and putting up a water park". Half of my family died in Auschwitz.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.1  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 months ago

Sigh, It gets tiring having to explain to people who are constantly being offended by literally everything.

Exactly how in the hell did you get that I was advocating for the plowing down Auschwitz? My point was exactly the opposite. It should remain as a reminder of the horror it represents, just like the Civil war statues to remind us of the horrors of slavery and the 620,000 deaths because we couldn't come to a political agreement.

I am truly sorry that half your family died in Auschwitz, So you would support it's remaining as a reminder, even if it hurts some snowflakes feelings.....Correct?

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.2  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 months ago
The posting made on facebook looked more like a glorification of the guy,

And that is an opinion, It would be like having an article on Pearl Harbor and leaving the Japanese out. Mentioning the stunning victory the Japanese scored at Pearl Harbor isn't glorifying them. Or leaving out the atrocities they committed in China on an article about Pearl Harbor tacitly supporting them in spite of what some might think.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.3  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.1.1    2 months ago

Loki,

You seemed to miss my point and made this into some political thing, which it shouldn't be (i.e. "snowflakes). 

I am all for teachable moments. What I am not for is glorifying Nazis. Look at the post at 7.1. Do you see that it was offensive to even a member of the military? Do we need to see the bastard in his Nazi regalia, or should we be talking about the event?

And I never mentioned the Civil War statues. And I am not for taking them down, but removing them from spots of honor and putting them into museums. 

I am truly sorry that half your family died in Auschwitz, So you would support it's remaining as a reminder, even if it hurts some snowflakes feelings.....Correct?

I have never heard of anyone say to take down Auschwitz. And while we are remembering, could you remind some of your pals that would include the Armenians?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.1.2    2 months ago
And that is an opinion, It would be like having an article on Pearl Harbor and leaving the Japanese out.

When we remember Pearl Harbor, we show the destruction and death that the Japanese did. Not some Nazi looking fine. How about showing scenes from the Battle of the Bulge. That is an equivalent.

I can't believe I have to have this discussion. Honestly, I thought that this would be one we could all agree on.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.5  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.4    2 months ago

The point is, he is historically significant to the battle, Just as the Japanese are to Pearl Harbor, 

 Honestly, I thought that this would be one we could all agree on.  It's cute how you are an optimist, (this is no way meant to be condescending) I find it refreshing,  Maybe there is hope, even if fleeting. 

The point I was trying to make is just because someone was offended, doesn't mean it was wrong, How would you have displayed him? Stark naked? don't you think some prudish church lady would have been offended? His Nazi regalia  is who he was, offensive and disgusting, Why would anyone think that was an honorable way to show him?

Showing David Duke in his white sheet isn't honoring the klan, It's showing what a miserable human piece of garbage he was/is.  

On a side note, you gave me days off for complaining about this very thing, a poster posted several pictures of Nazis in full regalia claiming they represented the republican party to make a political point. Of course me claiming they were his personal family reunion photos may have played a part, : )  I find that sad that you allowed the images to remain.

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.6  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.3    2 months ago
And while we are remembering, could you remind some of your pals that would include the Armenians?

I think there are a grand total of 2 people here i would consider friends, and a couple of acquaintances, but no pals, As for the Armenians, of course it is good to remember the atrocities done to them, and if a formal recognition is what it will take, then have at it.  After that do you think the congress can get around to feeding the starving kids in this country? maybe helping to pay teachers who succeed a better wage? and maybe stop bombing third world hell holes.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  loki12 @5.1.5    2 months ago
The point I was trying to make is just because someone was offended, doesn't mean it was wrong, How would you have displayed him? Stark naked? don't you think some prudish church lady would have been offended? His Nazi regalia  is who he was, offensive and disgusting, Why would anyone think that was an honorable way to show him?

I wouldn't have displayed him. They were commemorating the Battle of the Bulge. They should have been showing scenes from that battle, not some fine looking Nazi. The person who was first offended first was an army guy. Is he wrong?

On a side note, you gave me days off for complaining about this very thing, a poster posted several pictures of Nazis in full regalia claiming they represented the republican party to make a political point. Of course me claiming they were his personal family reunion photos may have played a part, : )  I find that sad that you allowed the images to remain.

I'm sorry, but I don't remember the event. Can you please point me to it?

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.8  loki12  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.7    2 months ago
I'm sorry, but I don't remember the event. Can you please point me to it?

To what point? it is ancient history now. 

not some fine looking Nazi. This by definition cannot exist.

The person who was first offended first was an army guy. Is he wrong? There is no right or wrong in offense, he has an opinion, I disagree, who you feel is right or wrong is your opinion. The difference is, we didn't use to make others bow to out opinions. we accepted we were different. You think it was wrong. good for you, others should have the right to disagree without being belittled or shamed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @5.1.8    2 months ago

How many names have you called people in politics that you disagree with? 

Please keep your reply to a manageable figure. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.10  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.9    2 months ago

John, Take your trolling elsewhere please.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @5.1.10    2 months ago
You think it was wrong. good for you, others should have the right to disagree without being belittled or shamed.

Have I seen you call a lot of people names, or not? I dont usually imagine things. 

 
 
 
loki12
5.1.12  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    2 months ago

I'm sorry John. Am i the subject here? 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.13  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    2 months ago

Both of you, take your off topic comments elsewhere. Only warning.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1    2 months ago
The posting made on facebook looked more like a glorification of the guy, and not history.  But should we also glorify the people who killed us?

One thing I learned in during my time in the military is to respect your enemy.  Just because a person is your enemy in combat does not mean that they cannot be respected for their planning abilities, strategic and tactical thinking.  There were / are so many things that even the U.S. Military and the world over learned from the Nazi regime.  Some Nazi tactics are still in use today by military around the world because they worked.

After all, it was Nazi scientists working in Operation Paperclip that helped the United States putt the 1st man on the moon.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.15  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.14    2 months ago

Jeremy, while it is true you should know your enemy, but when you are commemorating the Battle of the Bulge, you should be honoring your own, not the enemy. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.15    2 months ago

The XVIII Airborne Corps and the 82d Airborne are honoring our own.  It is also showing respect for those we have gone against.  

The problem is, as I said earlier, many don't understand the reason for that respect.  All they see are the distinctive SS marking and went straight to freak out mode.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.1.17  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.16    2 months ago

I'm not in freak out mode, and today I took the time time to show my dad the photo (he had not heard about this). He was career Navy and fought in both Korea and Vietnam. His older 2 brothers fought in WWII and Korea, Navy and Marines in that order.

He said he found it totally disrespectful to any American serviceman. That he was considered a war criminal and the US shouldn't be featuring war criminals. He's fine with discussing tactics but not a headshot of someone the US Gov thought was so evil, that they gave him a death sentence. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.1.17    2 months ago
I'm not in freak out mode, and today I took the time time to show my dad the photo (he had not heard about this).

I never said you were.  I do think you don't fully understand the presentation.

He was career Navy and fought in both Korea and Vietnam. His older 2 brothers fought in WWII and Korea, Navy and Marines in that order. He said he found it totally disrespectful to any American serviceman. That he was considered a war criminal and the US shouldn't be featuring war criminals. He's fine with discussing tactics but not a headshot of someone the US Gov thought was so evil, that they gave him a death sentence. 

I've spoken with WWII veterans that were assigned to the same Battalion's I was and they understand the message and the reason it was posted.  

He's fine with discussing tactics but not a headshot of someone the US Gov thought was so evil, that they gave him a death sentence.

Apparently they respect him enough to adapt some of his combat tactics for many USASOC units.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6  XDm9mm    2 months ago
After an NBC News reporter contacted the page, the photo of Peiper appeared to have been removed.

Of course it had to be removed.  It was offensive to someone who is adverse to factual history.  If hidden from view, the horrors that occurred during WWII and the people involved and responsible for those horrors can be forgotten.

One must surmise that Lt. Col. Brian Fickel, has no appreciation of history and ALL of the people involved.  Here's a hint Lt. Colonel, war is ugly, but to be ugly, you need to remember that there are people that made it ugly.  If you neglect to mention those people, you lose all perspective of who and what they were.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XDm9mm @6    2 months ago
One must surmise that Lt. Col. Brian Fickel, has no appreciation of history and ALL of the people involved.  Here's a hint Lt. Colonel, war is ugly, but to be ugly, you need to remember that there are people that made it ugly.  If you neglect to mention those people, you lose all perspective of who and what they were.

Talk about him, fine. How about talking about our boys? How about showing pictures of our guys, instead of some Nazi. No one is advocating for forgetting, but also for commemorating the good guys.. you know.. US!

Again, this should be a no brainer. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  XDm9mm @6    2 months ago
If you neglect to mention those people, you lose all perspective of who and what they were.

No one is trying to erase the stain of Nazism by neglecting to mention them. The difference here is, why display the large head shot of an SS officer with furrowed brows on the 75th anniversary of the battle of the bulge? Why not use a photo of an ally soldier, someone who fought against the SS scum? Trying to normalize the Nazis and present them as any other soldiers in any other war is what would actually cause some to lose perspective as to who and what they were. Sadly, there are still some piece of shit coward Nazi sympathizers who are actively trying to alter the negative image of the Nazis and what they represented, just like there are those who try and alter the negative image of slave owning confederates fighting for their right to own other humans as cattle. Getting rid of the memorials doesn't make anyone forget, it simply shows which side of history you want to honor and celebrate, the winners and those who fought to free the slaves, or the worthless bigoted confederate losers treasonously attacking our soldiers at Fort Sumter. By lifting up or protecting the monuments and memorials to the confederate traitors, it can teach the next generation just one thing, that somehow they weren't so bad. The only place pictures of Nazi's or confederates should be put up are in holocaust museums or civil war museums to show our kids who not to be, not presenting them larger than life at the local park in bronze like some war hero.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 months ago
Of course it had to be removed.  It was offensive to someone who is adverse to factual history.  If hidden from view, the horrors that occurred during WWII and the people involved and responsible for those horrors can be forgotten.

OK for all those who think this is about forgetting history (funny how the same ones who are complaining about that, never said a word on my Recognition of the Armenian genocide...is that not history?), I am going to do your work and go to the link and get the actual posts. You decide if this did or didn't look like a glorification of the man, and not just a teachable moment. 

Context is everything!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7    2 months ago

800

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
7.1.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1    2 months ago

Thank you for posting the image. I didn't see the hyperlink earlier. I still really don't think it is glorifying him all that much. It's just a picture of him and a short description of the battle. I think people over reacted honestly. I don't see anyone praising his actions or calling him a good person.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @7.1.1    2 months ago
Regardless, It's really just a picture of the man. I don't see that as being glorified. Is there some kind of caption with it praising his actions?

Why would you show a photo of a Nazi instead of the battel? Again, what is wrong with you people?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.2    2 months ago

Perrie, although you aren't quite openly questioning the motives of some of these commenters here,  I have to completely agree with your take. There is something a little odd about many of these comments. 

I looked through the twitter feed of the US soldier who questioned the need for pictures of this Nazi in tweets about the Battle of the Bulge

https://twitter.com/USArmyPAO/status/1206725290992570368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1206725290992570368&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nbcnews.com%2Fnews%2Fus-news%2Farmy-facebook-post-featuring-nazi-war-criminal-sparks-pushback-n1103041

and Im not seeing any snowflakeiness. 

-

One guy here says the Germans were the real soldiers in WW2.  WTF is that about?

Its hard to say for sure what went on in the tweets, as I think some of it has been taken down due to the complaints. 

It is true that historians such as Cornelius Ryan, Walter Lord, Donald Miller, and Rick Atkinson, all who wrote popular histories of WW2 , include information about what the enemy was doing and some mention of the background of  certain enemy officers,  and there is nothing unusual about it in a history book or magazine article,  I do kind of wonder what was the purpose of prominent pictures (facial closeups) of a Nazi murderer on a series of tweets celebrating American troops at the Bulge.  It is odd, which is why people commented about it on twitter. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.3    2 months ago

I agree with you, John. Please take note of that, since you say that I never do.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.6  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.3    2 months ago

It a good thing it shows that some people still admire Nazi’s it a good thing it comes to light.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
7.1.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @7.1.6    2 months ago

How is that a good thing that people admire Nazis? It means they agree with them. That is a terrible thing.

And why should our US Army support this. What does that say about them?

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.7    2 months ago
How is that a good thing that people admire Nazis? It means they agree with them. That is a terrible thing

One can admire "Things", without admiring the entity that Produced those "Things".

Wernher von Braun comes to mind !

The U.S. Military used "Blitzkrieg" in Iraq . Does that mean the U.S. Military loved Nazi's ?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @7.1.8    2 months ago

Saying you missed the point would be putting it mildly. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.9    2 months ago
Saying you missed the point would be putting it mildly. 

Say it LOUD and Proud ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

Don't cower with smaller fonts. jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

Quick.... what's "Mildly mean" ?

 
 
 
MUVA
7.1.11  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @7.1.7    2 months ago

It is a good thing we know they do.Not that people actually praise Nazi’s  are you really unable to understand my point really you think a middle aged black guys likes Nazi’s or glorifies them.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    2 months ago

I think these things need to be known, but you must be careful how you make it known. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 months ago

Exactly, Kathleen. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2  MUVA  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 months ago

No you make things known and easy to be known this isn’t Iran,Afghanistan where zealots or the easily offended tell us what we get to see.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @8.2    2 months ago

HUH?

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.1    2 months ago

Next they will be tearing down monuments like the Taliban wait we have already started that practice. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.2.3  Kathleen  replied to  MUVA @8.2    2 months ago

I was talking about putting a bad person in a good light. I was not talking about shutting people out and not showing them what is happening and any history.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.4  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  MUVA @8.2.2    2 months ago

MUVA,

This article is not about monuments. It's about Nazis being glorified. 

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.4    2 months ago

I understand perfectly my comment is you don’t stifle info even if some are offended the mere fact we know some still praise Nazi’s is good info.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.6  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.4    2 months ago
It's about Nazis being glorified. 

That's what we do now. Glorify and protect nazis, white nationalists, Saudi terrorists, Putin, Kim Jon Uhn, and Erdogan. We attack the FBI, the CIA, the free press, the Democrats, whistleblowers, the rule of law AND the Constitution.

Without a doubt we are living in bizarro world.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Kathleen @8.2.3    2 months ago

It doesn’t matter we actually were educated with that post that some still hold high opinions of Nazi’s .

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.8  MUVA  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.6    2 months ago

Who glorifies Nazi’ terrorist?That being said it is a good thing people post this crap it gives a insight into what some.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.6    2 months ago

Pat, you are getting close to putting your finger on the issue. Big thumbs up. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  MUVA @8.2.8    2 months ago
Who glorifies Nazi’ terrorist?

Might it be those swastika flag waving bigots wearing MAGA hats marching the streets along side their fellow confederate bigots with tiki torches shouting "Jews will not replace us!"? Perhaps? You know, those "fine people" the President talked about.

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.11  MUVA  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.2.10    2 months ago

I don’t know why you think those people are fine that’s on you.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.12  pat wilson  replied to  MUVA @8.2.8    2 months ago
Without a doubt we are living in bizarro world.

Did you miss that ??

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.13  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.12    2 months ago

OK guys, this is not about politics. It is about the a Nazi being featured on a US Army site.

 
 
 
pat wilson
8.2.14  pat wilson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8.2.13    2 months ago

Don't worry I won't comment further !

 
 
 
MUVA
8.2.15  MUVA  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.12    2 months ago

That doesn’t mean anything you said we now glorify Nazi’s and terrorist I fought terrorist I have no use for [Nazi’s. Deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8.2.16  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  pat wilson @8.2.14    2 months ago

Pat, 

I am not trying to chase anyone from the discussion. I am just trying to steer free of politics. Please don't take that personally.

 
 
 
Sunshine
9  Sunshine    2 months ago

A little off topic, but for those who missed this 60 minutes segment on Sunday, I think it would interest many here.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/holocaust-prisoners-in-nazi-concentration-camps-made-music-now-being-discovered-and-performed-60-minutes-2019-12-15/

And I agree that the facebook post was describing the Nazi in a honorable way more than it should have.  Wasn't the time and place for it. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @9    2 months ago

Thank you Sunshine for the link and the post and understanding that we shouldn't be glorifying Nazis and not our own boys who fought that battle!

 
 
 
Ender
9.2  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @9    2 months ago

Oh no! I agree with you!  Haha

There is a time and place. I remember on the History channel, or somewhere, when the History channel use to show you know, history, where they would highlight some of the nazi commanders/brass. Show what they had done and what they did. It is history for the books yet in their renderings they never glorified the people or atrocities.

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @9.2    2 months ago
they never glorified the people or atrocities.

Well glad we agree on the facebook post, but the History channel would show Hitler glorified.  His speeches, marches, people adoring the man.  They would show SS Officers as family men and not always the true monsters they where.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @9.2.1    2 months ago

Sunshine,

I am a big fan of the history channel and they don't show Hitler as glorified. They put it into perspective by explaining the how and why this happened. 

They would show SS Officers as family men and not always the true monsters they where.

I have seen what you are talking about, and I have never seen it without explanation that they were monsters. 

 
 
 
Ender
9.2.3  Ender  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.2.2    2 months ago

What I have seen about hitler, they would show him speaking at his rallies etc. I think if anything it was showing his own people glorifying him, probably by necessity.

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.2.2    2 months ago
I have seen what you are talking about, and I have never seen it without explanation that they were monsters. 

It is context, but it is the same...telling a story.  I think this post on facebook was trying to do the same, tell a story, but like I said it was the wrong time because the story was about celebrating our soldiers.  He could have done it different, but no one is perfect.  

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
9.2.5  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Sunshine @9.2.1    2 months ago

Many officers were family men just following orders. I loved this serious on netflix before they took it off. Watch it sometime it is awesome how it show life and culture and the people who had to serve in the war at the time.

Generation War

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1883092/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Sunshine @9.2.4    2 months ago

The US Army Is Sorry For Posting A Glamour Shot Of A Nazi War Criminal On Their Facebook Page The Colorized Image Apparently Originated From A Slovakian Fascist Gamer’s Website.

The headline says it all and explains the controversy.  It was a "glamor shot". 

Text that accompanied the photo is also extremely problematic

=======================================================

_v=63f541576617500

“The fate of his beloved nation rested on his ability to lead his men through the American lines,”

========================================================

Frankly, it is easy to see why Americans of all sorts objected to this.  I hope the Army investigates to find out if some right wing nationalism isnt behind this. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2.7  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @9.2.5    2 months ago
Many officers were family men just following orders.

No, that was true of the regulars. Officers were in the loop and earned their way to the top. They did more than just follow orders. They agreed with Nazi policy.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
9.2.8  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.6    2 months ago

Where did you find that John?

And if it's true, that goes beyond the pale. 

 
 
 
MUVA
9.2.9  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.6    2 months ago

Maybe it’s a Nazi socialist or Fascist that posted it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @9.2.8    2 months ago

What this information does is most likely move this from one type of story to another type of story. 

Why did someone post a "glamor shot" of a Nazi war criminal on a US Army twitter page? 

One of the first possibilities that comes to mind is that someone in that Army unit is fond of Nazis. 

Lets see what the investigation finds. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.11    2 months ago
One of the first possibilities that comes to mind is that someone in that Army unit is fond of Nazis. 

"The Army and Naval academies said they were looking into whether hand symbols by cadets and midshipmen at a football game on Saturday were related to hate groups."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/us/army-navy-game-white-supremacy.html

Sadly, there have been some white power groups and white nationalists that have infiltrated our own military. Even some cities police forces have been infiltrated by the hate filled bigots.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/31/the-fbi-has-quietly-investigated-white-supremacist-infiltration-of-law-enforcement/

 
 
 
Sunshine
9.2.13  Sunshine  replied to  JohnRussell @9.2.6    2 months ago
A spokesman for the Airborne Corps, Tage J. Rainsford, said in a statement to NBC News that he regrets the use of Peiper's photo.
"This was in no way intended to glorify the German forces, but to fully portray the odds stacked up against the Americans by December 19th," he said.

The above is directly from the seeded article.  Airborne is admitting they used the photos.

 
 
 
The People's Fish
10  The People's Fish    2 months ago

The US army should be highlighting America's brave not some dirtbag.

 
 
 
Ender
11  Ender    2 months ago

I like what his friend said on his twitter...

@ FPWellman  
Yes but the part I can’t accept is the doubling down and attacking people who are criticizing them. The attitude that we are all wrong for not seeing their brilliant story telling reflects an attitude that they don’t work for us. That’s where I’ve gone from disappointed to angry.
Seems they were doubling down on what they had done. Kind of like some people here. Like they want the nazi shown in a good light.
I saw a screen shot of the facebook post. It was all about him. Like it was glorifying him and what he had done.
Don't tell me...some very fine people on both sides....
I would like to know when it became the norm for some to defend things like this. The posts saying we should remember history, war is hell, etc. are only trying to muddy the water and make it the fault of the people offended, instead of where the true fault lies, with the people that think the right thing to do is glorify a nazi war criminal.
 
 
 
Sunshine
12  Sunshine    2 months ago
Kind of like some people here.  Like they want the Nazi shown in a good light

No they didn't.  They just see it from a different opinion.  No one on NT thinks highly of Nazi's.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @12    2 months ago

Sometimes I wonder. When we have an investigation of people flashing WP signs at a football game, people posing for photos using a nazi salute...

Some seem more brazen yet at the same time using symbols and 'code' as to not draw as much attention.

 
 
 
Sunshine
12.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @12.1    2 months ago
'code' as to not draw as much attention.

Nobody on NT is using "code". 

I guess if one looks hard enough for something they will see it.

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.2  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @12.1.1    2 months ago

For all we know there could be a member that has a basement full of nazi paraphernalia.

I have leaned never say never or make any absolutes.

I go by statements people make.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @12.1.2    2 months ago
I go by statements people make.

Really ?

Do you have a basement/garage full of ANTIFA stuff  ?

I'm just going by certain "Statements" you've made, that is !

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.4  MUVA  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.3    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.5  Ender  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.3    2 months ago

So what I said went straight over your head...

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.1.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Ender @12.1    2 months ago
When we have an investigation of people flashing WP signs at a football game,

Because of triggered snowflakes in the PC crowd

If you know any active military ask them what that is about, if you don't then I guess just keep running around scared of the WP boogey man lurking everywhere....

256

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  Ender @12.1.5    2 months ago
So what I said went straight over your head...

It didn't !

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.8  Ender  replied to  KDMichigan @12.1.6    2 months ago
How did it become connected to “white power”?

It started in early 2017 as a hoax. Anonymous users of 4chan , an anonymous and unrestricted online message board, began what they called “Operation O-KKK,” to see if they could trick the wider world — and especially, liberals and the mainstream media — into believing that the innocuous gesture was actually a clandestine symbol of white power.

“We must flood Twitter and other social media websites with spam, claiming that the OK hand signal is a symbol of white supremacy ,” one of the users posted, going on to suggest that everyone involved create fake social media accounts “with basic white girl names” to propagate the notion as widely as possible.

The 4chan hoax succeeded all too well and ceased being a hoax: Neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen and other white nationalists began using the gesture in public to signal their presence and to spot potential sympathisers and recruits. For them, the letters formed by the hand were not O and K, but W and P, for “white power”.

The gesture is not the only symbol to have been appropriated and swiftly weaponized by alt-right internet trolls. The Southern Poverty Law Centre has identified memes featuring the hoax religion of “Kek” and cartoon character Pepe the Frog, among others, as being at the forefront of white nationalists’ efforts to distract and infuriate liberals.

Where else has the gesture surfaced?

A number of high-profile figures on the far right have helped spread the gesture’s racist connotation by flashing it conspicuously in public, including Milo Yiannopoulos , an outspoken former Breitbart editor, and Richard Spencer, one of the promoters of the white power rally in Charlottesville, Virginia , in 2017 that resulted in the death of a 32-year-old woman.

The gesture was in the headlines again after Roger Stone, a longtime political adviser to US president Donald Trump , met with a group of white nationalists known as Proud Boys in Salem, Oregon, in 2018 and was photographed displaying it with them.

.

That the gesture has migrated beyond ironic trolling culture to become a “sincere expression of white supremacy”, according to the Anti-Defamation League, could be seen in March 2019 when Brenton Tarrant, the white supremacist accused of killing 50 people in back-to-back mass shootings at two mosques in Christchurch , New Zealand, smiled and flashed the sign to reporters at a court hearing on his case.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ok-sign-white-power-supremacy-alt-right-4chan-trolling-hoax-a9249846.html

Denial does not an argument make.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.1.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Ender @12.1.8    2 months ago

Did you even read what you posted? It started as a hoax to trigger the left wing snowflakes and it's still working.

And it's been around a lot longer than 2017. 

But as I said you just go right along believing that every gesture is being performed be a secret Nazi. 

here is some more confirmation bias to make you feel better about yourself. seems you believe everything on the internet.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/white-power-sign-flashed-by-students-prompts-military-investigation-927343/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/intern-white-power-hand-gesture/

https://www.newsweek.com/alabama-officers-suspended-over-alleged-hoax-white-power-hand-gesture-photo-1028563

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2018/09/11/dallas-police-officer-amber-guyger-s-family-says-they-aren-t-racist-deny-gestures-in-photos-are-white-power-signs/

256

 
 
 
Ender
12.1.10  Ender  replied to  KDMichigan @12.1.9    2 months ago

If you read the article it is a symbol they use.

The only confirmation bias is people that deny reality.

 
 
 
It Is ME
13  It Is ME    2 months ago

Who bitched when American Troops had a picture of "Rommel" in their troop carrier during the Iraq War, and was shown on National TV ?

"According to US Army Lt Gen H. R. McMaster, who as a captain commanded an armored cavalry troop in the Gulf War, one of his M2 Bradleys had a picture of Erwin Rommel inside. An Iraqi officer prisoner asked the Bradley's driver why he had a picture of America's enemy inside his armored personnel carrier. The driver replied that if the Iraqis had studied Rommel's campaigns perhaps he wouldn't be an American prisoner."

Sometimes...looking at the history of military accomplishments, over and above aftermaths...makes for a better Military.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @13    2 months ago
Sometimes...looking at the history of military accomplishments, over and above aftermaths...makes for a better Military.

That is true. And that is why military tactics are taught in the branches of our armed forces. But this is NOT the way to commemorate a battle where our guys died. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1    2 months ago
But this is NOT the way to commemorate a battle where our guys died. 

"Social Media" isn't a "ceremonial" thingy. It's just a "Social" Thingy.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
13.1.2  seeder  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  It Is ME @13.1.1    2 months ago

No Facebook is used for PR by may companies and organizations. It is not really social, in the sense that you are using it

 
 
 
It Is ME
13.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @13.1.2    2 months ago

"Facebook"...... EVERYONE "USES" it (Accept ME) ! jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

It is all about " Social networking" on "Facebook".

 
 
 
Kathleen
14  Kathleen    2 months ago

I can think of plenty of other people that should get praise then these monsters that have no regard for human life.  

 
 
 
MUVA
14.1  MUVA  replied to  Kathleen @14    2 months ago

I think everyone agrees I also think it is a good thing we know some people still hold Nazi’s in high regards.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc
igknorantzrulz


28 visitors